RE: the OTHER test

Subject: RE: the OTHER test
From: "Sarah Bane" <Sarah -dot- Bane -at- spectrumretail -dot- com>
To: <BMcClain -at- centura -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:41:05 -0500

B. McClain remonstrates:
~|>We're way off-topic with employee screening at nursing
~|>homes, but I'll
~|>defend the practice by pointing out that nursing homes have
~|>employed some
~|>real losers through negligence or tolerance or both, with
~|>tragic results. I
~|>think pee tests are atrocious, and pre-employment health
~|>screening ought to
~|>be blatantly illegal, but criminal background and credit
~|>history are valid
~|>targets of scrutiny for some occupations.

Yes, it is off topic. Another listmember has already written me
privately on this. Since B. has addressed this on the list, I'll respond
here lest others think I have no regard for the safety of nursing-home
residents, children in day care, etc. I have no problem with such
screenings being conducted on people who work in nursing homes. However,
I was not at a nursing home. I was at the corporate headquarters, which
houses departments such as IT, accounting, and purchasing whose
employees have no contact with residents. In fact, the company in
question owns or runs hundreds of facilities (as I learned to call them)
but does not happen to have one in the same city where the headquarters
is located. The drug and criminal-background screenings were not doing
anything to protect residents.

Sarah Bane
Technical Writer, ProphetLine, Inc.
and Associate Instructor, Westark College
sarah -dot- bane -at- spectrumretail -dot- com
sbane -at- systema -dot- westark -dot- edu

Opinions expressed are my own and not endorsed by ProphetLine or by

Previous by Author: RE: the OTHER test
Next by Author: RE: In Reference to Drug Testing
Previous by Thread: re: the other test
Next by Thread: RE: The OTHER Test

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads